The new drug, called Adipotide, attacks white adipose tissue under the skin and around the abdomen

Researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center have developed a drug that assaults the blood supply of fat cells and led to weight loss in obese rhesus monkeys.

Renata Pasqualini, Ph.D., co-senior author of the study and professor in MD Anderson's David H. Koch Center for Applied Research for Genitourinary Cancers, along with Wadih Arap, M.D., co-senior author of the study and a professor in the Koch Center, and Kirstin Barnhart, D.V.M., Ph.D., veterinary clinical pathologist at MD Anderson's Keeling Center for Comparative Medicine and Research, have created a new weight-loss drug that could potentially reduce accumulated white fat in humans.

Currently, weight-loss drugs work to suppress the appetite or increase metabolism in order to combat obesity, but harmful side effects come with the use of such drugs.

Now, Pasqualini and Arap have designed a new drug called Adipotide, which attacks white adipose tissue. This tissue is an unhealthy kind of fat that accumulates around the abdomen and under the skin. Adipotide contains a homing agent that attaches to a protein on the surface of blood vessels that support the fat. A synthetic peptide then triggers cell death, and with a lack of blood supply, the fat cells are reabsorbed.

The drug was used in mice models and rhesus monkey models. Adipotide was able to decrease abdominal circumference, body mass index (BMI) and body fat.

According to the study, the obese mice lost about 30 percent of their body weight while on Adipotide. The rhesus monkeys in the study, which were "spontaneously" obese due to overeating and a lack of physical activity, had a 27 percent decrease in abdominal fat levels. The drug reduced the weight of rhesus monkeys by 11 percent in just one month.

The rhesus monkeys, in addition to being obese, had other health problems associated with their obesity such as metabolic syndrome. This can lead to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But those treated with Adipotide used about 50 percent less insulin.

The research team used Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to gauge abdominal body fat, which discovered the reduction in abdominal fat levels.

According to the study, monkeys were alert and acted normally during treatment. This showed that the usual side effects of weight-loss drugs, such as loss of appetite and nausea, were not present while using Adipotide. However, Barnhart noted side effects in the kidneys, but the effect was "dose-dependent, predictable and reversible."

In a separate study to test for the drug's effects in non-obese monkeys, lean monkeys did not lose weight, which shows that the drug only acts in obese subjects.

The next step will be a clinical trial for obese prostate cancer patients, where these patients will receive daily injections of Adipotide for 28 days. The team has targeted prostate cancer patients because current treatments can lead to weight gain, and weight gain has caused problems with arthritis. This then leads to less activity, and more weight gain.

"The question is, will their prostate cancer become better if we can reduce their body weight and the associated health risks," said Arap.

...people that would never think to judge, or express bias against another person based on their age, race, sexual orientation or religion, feel that it's okay to do so for someone's weight. It's the epitome of societal hypocrisy.

It doesn't matter WHY someone is fat. And, despite you naysayers, there ARE many more reasons for this occurring, than just 'oh noes, stop feedingz ur face!'. But, let's examine that particular reason: a person eats too much. Consistently. This is a choice a person makes. Kind of like sexual orientation. Kind of like religion. Why is it ok to blast a fat person, where you'd never think to (Or at least, you'll hide the fact, because society these days will blast you right back) blast someone for being homosexual?

I agree except that I think the last bastion of acceptable prejudice is behavior. We will always choose the best person for the job, or the one we like the most - not the person who needs the job the most.

My girlfriend gained weight due to steroids. She was on them to SAVE HER LIFE after an aneurysm at the age of sixteen. Two surgeries later, she still gets seizures and they can interfere with her life. Imagine working at a bank as a teller, and feeling a seizure coming on. Going in the backroom, and waking up disoriented after convulsing and biting your tongue till you bleed saliva on your face. She has to tell her boss not to call 911 prior, because right before she begans to freak out and says "I think we should call the hospital". Of course, that would only result in an ambulance bill. The doctors can't fix it. She used to ride a bike four miles to work and lost the weight.

One should never judge someone because of weight. That isn't to say you will find someone sexually or visually appealing, just that you should never be assumptive or harsh with words. Illness can make people very thin as well, one should never tell them to work out. Muscle deterioration happens. Even addictions can be attributed in part to genetic disposition. We are all very different from each other. Biological twins are totally unique apart from each other. Even something like our behaviors and routines can be genetic and environmental in nature. One cannot always help who they are, and even with counseling change is really hard.

We all have faults, and we need to look past weight, behaviors, race, creed, religion, color, language barriers, nationality, etc. and embrace the beauty of the human race.

I'm sure people do realize that there are situations where weight cannot be controlled. It's more of an issue with abusers than with those who legitimately have problems. It's doubtful that the obesity rates in the western world are all from genetic or poor circumstantial causes. Far too often are people blaming circumstance rather than simple calorie intake. I certainly believe that gluttony is something that should be looked down on, and personally I think it's crazy to compare excess consumption with something like race or sexual orientation.

You can't will away homosexuality or race, but you can (most of the time) prevent yourself from becoming too fat and unhealthy.

Please don't equate these two. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. Race, i.e. skin-color, is genetic and something you're born with. It is not under your control. Behaviour though is another matter entirely.

No, there is plenty of evidence to support this. I find it laughable when others try to explain how you can choose who you are attracted to. Really? That's news to the rest of the world. Find me a person who 'decided' they were attacted to another person, they didn't simply just feel attracted to them, and I'll show you a liar. If you choose to be ignorant, you can ignore all the evidence that sexual orientation is at the very least partly genetic. On the very first googled article on webmd I found this: "Previous studies in male twins have suggested that between 40%-60% of the variability in sexual orientation is due to genes." And using the common sense anecdotal principle that I am not attracted to men, I can't suddenly choose to be attracted to them. I didn't choose to be attracted to women;I have simply always been. If you are saying that you can suddenly choose to be attracted to men, as a man, then you are probably gay.

While it's not my intention to say anything mean to another person, if you are obese you shouldn't get special treatment. You DO have to buy 2 seats in the plane, most seating isn't made to accomodate you, because you've chosen to gain weight and never made any attempt to stop. You can get help before you get obese; overweight is a far cry from not fitting into an airplane seat. If you are just a big person, you'd still have to buy 2 seats. It's really hard to feel bad for someone who eats a whole bag of oreos at one sitting. Am I going to call them fat or say mean things to them? No, people deserve to be treated decently. But I don't sympathize or support obesity as a handicap any more than smoking is. Again anecdotally, I've never ever seen a person who was obese not eat 3X or more than they should be eating at one sitting, has anyone ever? Speaking of choice, I choose to not get fat, even though I love cheese sticks, bacon cheeseburgers, bacon, beer, onion rings, little debbie and hostess snacks, and a slew of other crap for you foods. But I don't just eat them en masse even though I am compelled to do so by their oh-so-delicious flavor.

I'm sorry, the report you refer to is highly controversial. The guy, Dean Hamer, PhD, who did the original study was shown to be incorrect. He didn't like that, so he tried a different tack. He was shown to be wrong again.

In a critique of studies that claim to prove a "gay gene," homosexual activist and author Edward Stein, Ph.D., said, "Genes in themselves cannot directly specify any behavior or psychological phenomenon. . . . The terms ‘gay gene’ and ‘homosexual gene’ are, therefore, without meaning. . . . No one has . . . presented evidence in support of such a simple and direct link between genes and sexual orientation."

Even herehttp://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/stud...your case is not supported. 'As for the females, the "pattern of findings suggests that female homosexuality is a trait acquired after conception, most likely after birth, but before menarche . . . Our evidence, though based on a small sample, implicates environmental factors as the major determinant of female homosexuality." '

As has been stated here before by others, female homosexuality is environmentally determined.

"From the data reviewed in this report, it seems reasonable to conclude that male homosexuality, or, at least, some 'types' of male homosexuality, are under some degree of genetic control, although various problems with this data prevent more precise conclusions from being drawn."

In other words, there is no evidence -- ok, there is no (statictically) SIGNIFICANT evidence -- to support the claim of heritability.

Further, if homosexuality is genetically determined, how do you explain the tens of thousands who have left the homosexual lifestyle? check out http://exodusinternational.org/

It is the Holy Grail for all victims -- including but not limited to me -- to be able to pin your behaviour on genetics. It absolves you of doing anything to control that behaviour. Just as someone has noted here, a drug to help reduce obesity is merely a tool and does nothing about the underlying causes. If you take the drug you could well "think it's a license to eat whatever". And the same holds for any other addictive behaviour you can name. Go ahead, try it out. I'll wait.

Even if a heritability link is found, does that absolve you of your behaviour? Alcoholism, for example, can be controlled. Obesity too. I'm not saying this as a one-size-fits-all statement or passing judgement. Though let me add, obesity has a lot of negative health side-effects. Let us be slow to remove the social stigma. It is one thing to be prejudicial, granted, but another to condone a lifestyle that will (potentially) reduce quality-of-life and lifespan. To disapprove shows at least some concern for another human, whereas to say nothing is callous and selfish.

You can't debate because you're too childish. Because you're intimidated by somebody who thinks through their position, by somebody who leads an examined life. Grow a pair ... and, uh, good luck with that.

Because luck is all you've got -- not intellect and certainly not evidence. Lol

Homosexuality is correlated with the ratio of the length of the ring and middle fingers (which is influenced by sex hormones in the womb). It's correlated with the whorl of hair on your head (clockwise or anticlockwise) which is also influenced by estrogen/testosterone in the womb. It's correlated with twins. It's correlated with left-handedness - guess what? Hormone balances have also been linked to handedness. See a pattern here? One is more likely to be homosexual the more biological older siblings one has (rates of hormone production during pregnancy change the more pregnancies the mother has). Lesbians have responded to female pheromones in tests the same way straight men do. There are many, many more studies like this. It, like evolution, a round earth and one older than 6,000 years is accepted by sane, thinking people the world over. It's you who need to provide evidence for a claim as extraordinary as the one you're making. Did you choose your sexuality? Do you think there is a worldwide conspiracy involved when homosexual people tell you they didn't choose theirs? Or do you HAVE to believe that it's chosen behavior, because otherwise your Biblical injunction to make homosexuals' lives miserable by persecuting them and taking away their rights would be... evil, and that might lead you to believe your Bible might not actually be a scientific textbook?

I'd say it is a little different with smoking being harmful to the people who are doing it.

Also, as people said, you can be fat for non-life style reasons. I can't see any reason you become a smoker that isn't under the person's control. I do know of nicotine being a treatment for some kinds of medical problems like Turrets, but that doesn't mean you have to smoke it.

"Am I my brothers keeper?" Just because I see someone doing something that they can "control", doesn't mean I should necessarily degrade them over it and discriminate them does it?

Alcoholics have a choice too, except they are even given more respect than overweight people and smokers because we've cooked up this crock about it being a "disease" so we can excuse their behavior. I've never heard of a medical condition that forced you to walk into a liquor store, but there you have it.

"Necessarily"? Since when was there a mandate to discriminate anyone? Mockery is a part of human nature, and if it's for somebody choosing something clearly deleterious to himself or others, I'm all for it.

I've never heard of alcoholics being off limits because it's now being considered a disease. I don't know why drinkers get respect, but I guess it has to do with them being assumed to either be manly, party animals, and/or an easy lay. Still, there's plenty of denigration being thrown their way..

Most adults are not outright mean to fat people; that's more of a middle/high school thing. However, how is intervening on anyone's eating habits any different than alcohol or drug abuse? It's a behavior that severely degrades a persons quality of life and threatens their health and well-being. It's extremely difficult to intervene in ones behavior and not come across as mean or condescending. Chances are the overweight person wants to lose the weight anyway, they just lack the discipline to do so.

First of all, outlawing all mockery and treating everyone perfectly equally (no BFFs, nobody is looked down upon, everyone is your friend) would make the world an awfully bland place and encourages people to be jackasses. So let's rule that out.

Mockery for something that is completely out of someone's control is considered douchey. That includes skin color, attractiveness, race, ancestry, nationality, sex, sexual orientation (no, it is not a choice like you claim), etc.

For stuff they choose to do? Mock away. Please go ahead and mock people who are irrational/stupid (assuming it's not some genetic/developmental problem), racist, lazy, smoke, abuse drugs, etc. And yes, the majority of obese people became that way by choice. It's unhealthy, often inconveniences others, a burden on society, etc. so there's plenty of reasons to mock them.

Personally, I only engage in making fun of fat people if I know that they're cool with it and will tease me back, but in general my view is that if you became fat by choosing to overeat - the cause for the vast majority of obesity - then getting mocked comes with that decision, so deal with it.

This sort of research is brilliant. It has a lot more applications than just attacking fat cells. Since it's wiping out blood supply specifically, in a targeted way, to one particular tissue (adipose in this case), think about modifying it for targeting cancers. Wipe out the blood supply to a tumor and it no longer has the ability to grow let alone metastasize and spread throughout the body (which is the most lethal stage of cancer).

Getting rid of excess adipose tissue, which is nothing more than a massive inflammatory signaler for our bodies in the modern age, has worlds of benefit for preventative care, and as an adjunct to many other treatments and exercise regimes.

The potential uses and modifications this treatment presents are immense. Excitingly. But first we must make sure it works properly, and as advertised in humans. We shall see!

My belief is that one cause of obesity is that the body can't get rid of toxins, so it stores them in fat until they break down or can be got rid of. For example, since cancer treatments often involve toxic chemicals, then it would be quite understandable to put on weight to store those toxins that need to be got rid of but can't, so the patient puts on weight as a means to minimise damage to the body.The problem with this treatment is that it assumes the body can get rid of the fat and any toxins inside it, but that may not be the case. The outcome then, of forcing the body to cut back on fat, would be to release those toxins into the blood stream where they may actually create worse health problems than just being obese, e.g. cause brain damage.

Taking in a large amount of sugar, especially fructose (breaks down to uric acid, raising blood pressure), can cause all three of those, though.

Now how many overweight people have you encountered that drink soda constantly?

If overweight people who have the "metabolic syndrome" take something like this and lose weight, it could just make the problem worse by leading them to believe they can consume things which are toxic without consequence. They could very well just drink even more soda or whatever their problem is and go into a coma.

You say it's not all that complex but you and others like you keep leaving out the basic part about excreting.

Not everyone shits the same percentage of calories they consume. If the claims that a small extra amount of calories consumed each day add up to weight gain, then logically a small extra amount of calories excreted each day would add up to weight loss too.

quote: Biologist Jeffrey Gordon of Washington University in St. Louis became quite well known a few years ago for a group of very skinny mice in his lab. The mice were skinny because they had no bacteria in their intestines. Gordon had kept them completely bacteria-free. If a bacteria-free mouse eats, food passes right through the intestine, significantly undigested.

So without bacteria, the mouse can eat and eat and eat and never gain weight. But when Gordon exposed the mice to "this big, bad, dirty world," as Gibson calls it, the mice suddenly turned their food into more calories and gained weight. So bacteria matter. Apparently, they can digest food far more efficiently.

Metabolism does matter a lot too. Mammals burn up a lot more calories than reptiles. If your body has many more colder parts (e.g. cold hands, limbs etc), you will be burning fewer calories than someone who was more evenly warm.

There is clearly a problem that many people can't solve otherwise why has obesity skyrocketed amongst the US people despite all that "Food Pyramid" advice (from the US Department of _Agriculture_, go figure ;) ) and "low fat" options? There are also some claims about sugar (particularly fructose) consumption being a major cause of obesity.

So "eat less exercise more" is as helpful as the USDA pyramid (e.g. not at all).

Metabolism is not magic. You're not going to be burning massive amounts of excess calories based on genetics. I doubt you would want to suffer the symptoms of hyperthyroidism just to "be skinny".

Also that test you're referring to has mice with intestines made completely sterile. This is as far from reality as you can get, and is mainly intended to show the possibility of targeting intestinal bacteria for medical reasons rather than proof of "natural" causes of fatness.

I recently lost almost 50 pounds, and I can tell you that losing weight is a major pain in the %#@. It's more than just the willpower you need to go to bed hungry every night, it's things like waking up early enough to make yourself a salad so you don't have to depend on fast food for lunch, and it's constantly begging off going out with your friends because you know you'll drink if you do. Or just budgeting the time you need to exercise the hour+ you need to each day.

If science gives us a magic pill that lets people lose weight without having to go through all that, I say great. The whole point of technology is to make people's lives easier. Give this drug to everyone on the planet and let them eat cheesecake.

Although I will say that losing weight the hard way gave me an incredible since of accomplishment.

The drug would have to be used as a helping tool to learn better practice. People can not expect it to be a miracle pill. But if it allows the person that is 350 pounds to lose 100 pounds which losing that weight can then give them more energy allows them to exercise more and all the while learning better eating habits from nutritionist/physiologist to help with why they eat. Then the drug can be very effective at changing someones live. But people need to see it as a tool like I said and not a cure.

But that's the problem. Nobody sees drugs like this as the tools they are. They think it's a license to eat whatever they want, and not exercise, with no consequences.

Giving people a pill circumvents the whole, "teaching them healthy lifestyle choices," thing. They don't learn self control. They don't learn how to exercise. They don't learn how to make healthy choices. They learn that all of their bad choices mean nothing because a pill will fix everything.

I mean, at least gastric bypass sort of forces people to eat smaller portions (they vomit if they eat too much). A pill does nothing to change one's habits.

As soon as people stop treatments like this, they gain the weight right back.

Which is why the doctor forces patients to do a lifestyle change. For gastric bypass patients have to go through a 6 month or 3 month program depending on their health insurance that includes a entire work up of their health, physiological state, and lots of sessions with a nutritionist and support groups to learn everything. This pill could be a substitute to surgery but still use all the pre-planning stages first. This type of drug can not be something a doctor just gives a patient it has to be something that is closely monitored by the doctor so the doctor knows the patient is doing the program correctly. I know there are a lot of people that see gastric bypass as a miracle cure that just allows you to eat less and makes you skinny. But it doesn't without the right mindset gastric bypass you can just as easily rebound if you see it as a miracle cure.

quote: Which is why the doctor forces patients to do a lifestyle change.

I loled.

For one, doctors can't force patients to do anything. If doctors could force patients to change their lifestyles, obesity wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Secondly, I'll let you in on a little secret: most doctors don't actually like people. Most doctors don't go into medicine to help people--they go into medicine because it's a prestigious, highly respected, powerful, money-falling-out-your-ass career. Anything that requires that much patient interaction is sure to fail for a majority of doctors, especially just to prescribe a pill, and especially if that pill has minimal side effects. They're just not going to do that much work.

Gastic bypass is different, for one, because it's invasive surgery. It's a lot of work on the part of the doctors and surgeons, it's dangerous, and it has a lot of potential consequences. For all those reasons, the doctors don't just let anyone get the surgery any time they want; a lot of that extra work is to cover their asses if something goes wrong. E.g. someone comes in who wants to lose 20 lbs, they're not going to give them gastric bypass for that. The risk is too great for such a little weight loss.

This is a pill. All the work the doctors have to do is scribble on a piece of paper and the patient goes away. If they don't have to do more work, they wont. As long as the side effects are minimal, you'd better believe doctors will prescribe it left and right to anyone even remotely overweight.

Which is why I feel that just giving the pill away is the wrong way to do it. And yes doctors could force their patients to change their lifestyles and monitor it or the patient doesn't get the pill. The pill can't be used as a miracle cure because it won't fix the underlying problem. That problem needs to be fixed or the person will just rebound in their weight. This type of drug would need to be regulated so that doctors can't just give it away to whoever for whatever reason.

Plenty of people are on a medication for the rest of their lives, does it make it inherently wrong?So, assuming without the pill, the people will just be fat, which is worse - people who are fat, unhealthy, and not taking a pill, or people who are not fat, a littler healthier, and taking a pill? With-holding the pill isn't going to fix anything - if it did, the fact that it hasn't exist so far would mean people already got over weight problems without it.

From the context of the article, this drug seems to be for treating people already on medication who are stuck in beds all day with serious illnesses, where weight gain can be an unwanted side effect that the patient can't really control.

Sometimes it is. It's not always black and white, for some people it's shades of grey.There are many factors that can make it difficult for someone to reduce weight no matter what they try.It's important to make sure the person needs this kind of drugs, but in this age of "there's a pill for everything" people don't measure the consequences, many just want the easy way out.

Some people are not fat from just over eating though. There are many people with thyroid problems that can cause obesity even though their calorie intake is low. I think this kind of medicine would be good for people that don't have eating/exercise issues.

Now if you have an eating/exercise issue I think bariatric surgery such as a Lap band can be greatly beneficial more then a drug. My mom just had the Lap Band procedure and it is helping her lose weight so she can exercise more because she was diagnosed with chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia which seriously limits the amount of exercise she can do but having lost some weight already it gives her more energy to be able to exercise more.

What about people who have lost the ability to be ambulatory due to injury or disease, temporarily or permanently? What about many forms of medication that cause weight gain as a side effect?

Fat is nothing but a big inflammatory cytokine factory in our modern age, that causes massively bad health repercussions throughout the body as it aggregates. Something like this drug would do wonders as a preventative medicine, especially in the cases I listed above--and that in turn would take a lot of burden off our health care system and in theory lower costs for us all.

So, why are you complaining about a good thing that could only benefit us all, if it works?

The problem is that some research has shown that even if an obese person does lose weight, the adipocytes remain behind, which can send signals to the rest of the body that it needs to eat or retain a greater percentage of calories. This can result in the yo-yo weight issues that many people who attempt to lose weight can suffer from.

This drug, be actually eliminating adipocytes, can prevent this signalling and possibly result in better long-term weight loss when combined with a change of lifestyle.

Not sure why you were rated down, unless someone knows of research saying the opposite.

Since fat cells shrink rather than dying off or getting metabolized, a previously fat person will have many more fat cells than a person who has been skinny all their life. I would assume that puts the previously fat person at a disadvantage.

Perhaps this could also be used as a LAST step to a exercise/diet weight loss plan and not just the first or only step.

The problem with a pure diet/exercise plan to start though is that is the person is 350 pounds they don't have the energy a lot of the time to do an exercise plan. This could help with the first step with a combination of diet to help lose some weight to the point where it will allow them to start exercise. Once they are at point they could stop drug. I see it more as a starting off that they slowly stop taking.

I wouldn't leave this to a last step, but would certainly be better as part of the exercise/life-style changes.

Just psychologically, it would probably be easier to keep someone on a new exercise regime if they are seeing good results, versus trying to exercise and eat right and never seeing the weight come off.

True, but for those who have already lost weight without drugs, this could still be useful.The benefits are obvious at the beginning, but it would be interesting to see if using the drug to "kill" these cells would lead to more long-term weight loss than those who don't take it at all.

In the end, I fear there will be side effects that make it not worth the risk for many people. As long as doctors aren't coaxed into over-prescribing it by pressure of patients and drug companies, it could be a useful tool for some people though.

Good grief, a bit of exercise and control of eating cheesy poofs will keep you from needing to purchase drugs to control your fat arse from growing. Used to be that if people got a bit of extra weight on, they would simply push back from the table and eat less. Then go work a bit harder. Now, it's just not possible and people need a stinking crutch to do something their body IS MADE TO DO!

Really if you have not read the other posts from below then you are just an ignorant a-hole that does not understand the hardship of being large. Sometimes it is not just people being lazy or them eating to much. There are many other reasons why people are fat.

Period. I have some big, big friends, and I know exactly how they got there, and they are free with how they got there. One of them actually puts some effort into reducing from time to time and will lose 150+ lbs. I have a cousin who lost around 250lbs just by eating right and running. She was HUGE at 400+.

You fatties out there need to get a hold of yourself, not look for a magic bullet. Of course in our society, that's not PC to say as problems never originate with an individual, it's all about who failed that person.

I love your comments but if you ever want or know anyone who wants to shed a few punds themselvse then I highly recommend this site. It is a FANTASTIC weightloss program that really works. I love to work out but lately I just haven't had the time or money to get back into it. Also, Spring break is commin up in a few months or so and I wanted to not only look but feel good as well. I've been doing this for a month and I have to say.. the amount of energy I have each day now is crazy, I feel amazing! I am in college and being a college student away from mom's home cooking and a bad sleeping schedule, I always felt like I had been hit by a bus. ha. I was always sleepy because of pulling all nighters writting papers and now that I am back on a healthy eating habbit and sleeping schedule.. I couldn't feel better! But just a little tip for everyone who wants to look and feel alive again!! Here's the link for anyone who is interested! http://massprojr2687234.positivestrongeryou.com/

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007